How do Christians reconcile the problem of evil?

[oi_antz]

Thanks for the welcome.


I've done an extensive amount of study on the logic behind this. There is no other way to reconcile the problem of evil - whether there are two Christians or two billion Christians.


Perhaps some background is in order. Many of the Christians I have encountered claim God can do anything. They are either right or they are wrong. If they are wrong, then the statement "God can do anything" is inaccurate, meaning if God exists, then the statement "God can't do anything" would have to be accurate or correct.

If God can do anything, but chooses to not stop the rapist from molesting the child, then you have reconciled it by maintaining that God doesn't love the child enough to stop the rapist. Very simple.


Many Christians posit that God can do anything and loves everyone. This means if a child is about to get raped by a rapist, God would love the child enough that he would stop the rapist from raping the child. Since we know that rape of children does occur, then it would follow that if God exists, he either:
A) doesn't love the children enough to stop the raping or molesting of them
B) doesn't possess the power to stop the rape of molesting of a child

So if a child gets raped, and God loves that child, then it means he wasn't capable of preventing that rape. And if a child gets raped and God can do anything, then he didn't love that child enough to prevent the rape. This is pretty simple stuff.


No confusion at all. So if a child loses his loving Christian parents due to a destructive tornado, and God loves that child, then it means he wasn't capable of preventing that tornado from killing his parents. And if the child's parents get killed by the tornado and God can do anything, then he didn't love that child enough to prevent the tornado from killing his parents. Once again, this is pretty simple stuff.

No, you have refused to hear my point. It is obvious to me that if God can create a universe so vast and precise, then He should be able to prevent tornadoes and murders. But it is a clear fact that sometimes He chooses not to. His reason for choosing not to prevent evil is not necessarily due to a lack of love, that is your projection of your own expectations upon Him. If you want to understand why He tolerates evil, you will need to see His point of view.

I can understand why you have that impression. But I don't have a habit of putting blame on things which I don't even believe to exist.

What is the purpose of this thread if it is not to express some discontent with God's wisdom?

 

[Akureyri]

Blame it in the devil

What, exactly, is the devil?

When people say God can do anything, does that include preventing the devil from taking a certain action?

What specifically should be blamed on the devil?

 

[Akureyri]

Just because God has the power to do things doesn't mean his nature and relationship with man and earth posit such so equating it must be so that is contrary to how God reveals himself is a strawman argument.

Not a straw man argument at all. I'm responding to the claims Christians make in which they assert that God can do anything (which would include diverting a tornado, stopping a tsunami or preventing a rapist from raping a child) and loves everyone.

I don't believe God can do anything it is an illogical assumption that can put God in opposition to himself.

Please help me along. How would causing Hitler to have had a fatal heart attack before the six million Jews were tortured have put God in opposition to himself?

I believe God cannot do things that are against his nature. I don't believe God can destroy himself because his nature prevents it.

Does his nature make him incapable of destroying himself? If so, then he can't really do anything. Or does his nature merely make him not want to do certain things?

I don't believe God can sin because of his nature.

You're appearing to reside in the camp which claims God can't really do anything. Am I correct?

I don't believe God can force people to love him because of his nature.

If God can do anything, then he could force people to love him.

Now that I have made examples of God not doing everything I seriously doubt you are not going to stop using the nonsensical argument to try and trap Christians into defending your straw man.

There is no straw man argument. It seems as if you think it's a straw man argument, as it appears you part ways with Christians who think God can do anything and loves everyone.

I guess you completely ignore Jesus death on the cross, God does love everyone this world to him and the suffering is miniscule compared to eternity and God suffered beyond anything we could imagine on the cross to save us from an eternity of suffering and you don't even blink at that but are whining about a very short period of time people suffer here on earth.

Did God/Jesus really suffer on the cross? If Jesus really was God, then he would have known that after the crucifixion, he would rise from the dead and rejoin himself (e.g. Jesus would rejoin God).

God allows us free will and he raises up people to help with man's suffering. God does help with it but this is man's world and God doesn't intervene to rule the world and interfere.

If there were children playing on the railroad tracks, a train was coming, would you save the children from getting hit by the train? And if you stood there and did nothing - while having full power to save the children - how do you think others who knew you could have saved the children would feel about you?

Your idea of love is to be a tyrant in the end because God would have to rule the world and not allow us sin and in it not allow us free will to do as we please here.

You're digressing so much here. Do you think God can do anything? (YES/NO)
Do you think God loves everyone? (YES/NO)

You must believe he exists somehow or you are playing Don Quixote here.

Who is Don Quixote?
Define your God and I'll tell you if I believe it exists.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Not a straw man argument at all. I'm responding to the claims Christians make in which they assert that God can do anything (which would include diverting a tornado, stopping a tsunami or preventing a rapist from raping a child) and loves everyone.

Read the bible and tell me does God stop people from harming each other in the Old Testament? NO. God didn't stop Cain from killing able so trying to assert that God can do this and that when his nature shows he doesn't do this and that is using information that is incorrect about God to create a God that is not and then attacking it... Straw man.

Please help me along. How would causing Hitler to have had a fatal heart attack before the six million Jews were tortured have put God in opposition to himself?

In the Old Testament God allowed the Jews to suffer on their own without his help many times when they abandoned him. The Jews spent 400 years as slaves in Egypt and God didn't raise a hand to help them during that time. God finally decided that it was time to save them unto himself not that they deserved it but it was his plan to do so.

Does his nature make him incapable of destroying himself? If so, then he can't really do anything. Or does his nature merely make him not want to do certain things?

I think so, Why would a perfect being desire destruction of himself? God's perfect nature at times has him turning his back on sin (imperfection) and his desire for man to CHOOSE to love him has him allowing great evil of men that choose to hate him and allowing great evil to exist and prosper is something that people that claim God is ONLY love don't seem to have a grasp on. God uses evil for his purpose of good even.

You're appearing to reside in the camp which claims God can't really do anything. Am I correct?

If God can do anything, then he could force people to love him.

You just answered yourself what I don't believe God can do anything because forcing people to love isn't logical. Love isn't a forced thing it MUST be voluntary or it isn't love that is why God allows men to do evil because likewise in order for them to equally and voluntary choose to love him he has to allow the opposite to happen identically at the same level of passion. In order to allow us to worship him, God has to allow people to do the opposite which is to attack him AND his followers even to the point of tormenting and killing believers.

There is no straw man argument. It seems as if you think it's a straw man argument, as it appears you part ways with Christians who think God can do anything and loves everyone.

I don't part ways with them, when I have studied the Bible and seen God's nature within it I cannot agree that God's nature has him going around ruling the Earth stopping all evil. The Bible itself shows he doesn't do any such thing till he sets up his kingdom in the future. When he sets up his kingdom things will be different there won't be any rape or murder I believe but now... God allows it.

Did God/Jesus really suffer on the cross? If Jesus really was God, then he would have known that after the crucifixion, he would rise from the dead and rejoin himself (e.g. Jesus would rejoin God).

yes, Jesus IS God and as God AND human he suffered. I'm not able to tell you how he died and "rejoined" God in it all that is a mind boggling thing I don't totally understand.

If there were children playing on the railroad tracks, a train was coming, would you save the children from getting hit by the train? And if you stood there and did nothing - while having full power to save the children - how do you think others who knew you could have saved the children would feel about you?

I would save them if I could, and doing so I would be an agent of God in it since I am a believer. I think God encourages people to become policemen, doctors, rescue workers, etc instead of doing endless miracles and having us sitting around like a bunch of kings with God as our personal slave.

You're digressing so much here. Do you think God can do anything? (YES/NO)
Do you think God loves everyone? (YES/NO)

I think God has the power to do most anything, but his nature has him doing far less than people try and argue. This makes for two versions of God, one that is based upon what God HAS shown he will do and for what reasons we can establish he does them and another that people equate is possible. I equate it with a reality type version of God and a dreamworld type. If you were to go to a casino you could equate that you could sit down at every machine and every gambling table and win every single bet and become an overnight millionaire. It is possible for that to happen, but very few in their right minds will tell everyone around them that is what will happen as they know odds are so much against it from experience that equating the possibility of such is inane.

Who is Don Quixote?
Define your God and I'll tell you if I believe it exists.

Don Quiote is a fictional character that at one time went around attacking windmills thinking they were monsters just as you are equating a fictional god and attacking it here.

 

[Akureyri]

If you are equating God's love to earthly comforts what you are saying would seem to be true.

When Christians answer 'yes' to the question of "Does God love everyone", do they think I'm talking about some other kind of love? If so, what would it be?

He probably will not do whatever it takes to prove Himself to people who don't believe in Him. From my understanding of Scripture He doesn't have the level of narcissism most people have when one person doesn't believe the other person and then the other person feels that they have to prove themselves to show they are right.

It seems as if you're saying he doesn't really care if people don't believe he exists. Am I correct?

I guess the most logical way to see it is that God has allowed the evil for His glorification;

And you just said he doesn't have the level of narcissism that humans have. I sense a little inconsistency here. Perhaps you could reconcile this.

yet, we are operating on our logic which would be limited compared to God's logic (Satan does have limited power in the world--after all, this place isn't heaven. God doesn't want anyone to suffer--yet we live in the world and it is almost guaranteed we are going to suffer.

Then you must be reconciling the original question by holding to the construct of a god which is incapable of doing anything (e.g. preventing a tornado, stopping a tsunami, keeping a rapist from raping a child).

His own son suffered, and God loved His only son.

According to the Holy Trinity, Jesus is God. So if Jesus suffered, then God suffered. But more importantly, if Jesus was God, then when he was being crucified, he knew that he wasn't going to die and that he would rise from the dead. While he may have experienced pain, he would have known that he would live again. That's not that big a sacrifice.

It is difficult for someone whose mind is fixed in the comforts of the world and especially so for someone who can't believe that there is anything other than this world, but to suffer is proof of God's love for us).

If your child were raped by a rapist, would you say it's OK - simply because of some words written in a holy book?

It wouldn't be a simple, easy thing to go through and something entirely impossible to get through without breaking down without strong faith in God. And it would definitely not be OK. Sin is not ok, but unfortunately it happens.

Are you saying that it would be OK if your child got raped by a rapist while a god sits there and does nothing to prevent it from happening?

What do you think are the reason(s) God doesn't intervene and prevent tsunamis, tornadoes and earthquakes from killing loving parents and leaving their children as orphans, people losing their homes or people suffering serious injuries?

Because God doesn't exist to give people here a heaven on earth; His love is not equated to earthly comforts and nothing else. So many people seem to mistake that. To understand this and then ask why should one worship or love a God such as this then is to be fixed with a humanity-centered mindset. To worship and love a God such as this which does not work for a person but that that person works for God, one must have a God-centered mindset. I do not believe this can be accomplished without the help of the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree that God didn't love the victims of the Haiti earthquake enough to prevent the earthquake from occurring?

So you're saying Christian ministries would serve no purpose if there were no major catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Am I correct?

Not really--Christian ministries exist to bring people to Christ. Unfortunately, many times until someone has something tragic happen in their lives, they do not turn to God because their lives here on earth are going so well. Suffering exists, in my perspective, to restrain our attachments here on earth, to bring sobriety to people's lives. This might be something which will bring much scorn or derision to someone who is attached to this world and who believes there is nothing else.

If God can do anything, then why does he need a tragic hurricane to wipe through the city of New Orleans to get people to come to Christ? Why not try something a little less unloving such as changing the person so the person wants to come to Christ? More interestingly, why do such disasters act indiscriminately with respect to who the surviving victims are? Some already have come to Christ and some won't come to Christ in spite of the disaster. For you to be correct, we'd see disasters strike only those who need a disaster to get them to come to Christ - and that's not what we see.

It is just too bad that when something terrible does happen, sometimes perhaps some people will feel they are abandoned by God or as you posit here that God can't do anything. I understand how it can feel that way and how someone whose faith might not be that strong for it to become weakened and possibly crumble.

I'm not positing that god can't do anything. Simple logic tells us that in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, a god who loves us all can't exist.

I feel this is such a danger for those who adhere to the gospel of prosperity. God's word is a wonderful thing which can bring the only lasting peace to a person's life, but when one reads it with only the idea of God's love and not His judgment, how can faith in such a god withstand tragedy? Then you would be correct: this god can do nothing. And a God who will enact judgment and chastise people is not one to whom most people will cleave to when fixed with themselves foremost in their minds and not God. They do not want this God; they want the one who will bring earthly comfort to their lives.

God predestinated some unto everlasting life and some onto everlasting death.

Really? So what then happens if one who is predestined for everlasting life chooses a path which finds him not believing a god exists?

This is one of the harshest doctrines of my faith--it almost seems to verify the idea that God does not love everyone. Yet, it makes sense as to why some people believe in Him and others do not. Before I was converted by the Holy Spirit, I had much the same perspective as you do (the problem of evil in the world with an all-loving and all-powerful God). It just did not add up.

So how did you reconcile it? Did you conclude that God is incapable of doing anything or did you conclude that God doesn't love everyone?

I hope He will give you faith, whether it be in an all-loving God or the harsher one of my faith--whichever one will sustain your faith (they're the same God, He just gives each person their own measure of faith;

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something. I only believe things if I have a good reason. But if God can do anything, then I'd guess he can give me good reasons to believe anything.

I feel this is a significant reason for the different denominations). That you're asking these questions seems to mean you are seeking. I don't have all the answers; I am just starting out in my faith so I have many of the same questions as you do. However, I trust in God alone and His word says that He is good, just, and holy. And that I do believe more than any imagination of man.

I am seeking a better understanding how Christians reconcile aspects of their religious views which double as logical impossibilities.

 

[Akureyri]

This is an old, well-worn theological dilemma. That's not to say it's not imposing if you can't see beyond it.

The scriptural position is that God is neither weak nor uncaring. He is both able and willing to come to man's aid:

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. -Heb 11.6​

Then why does he do nothing when a massive tsunami destroys a place like Banda Aceh, Indonesia - leaving thousands of children without their parents?

The answer is that this present age is a "brief wrinkle in time", that once ironed out, will be long forgotten forevermore. God in His wisdom has allowed history to play out. I can think of one very good reason He has done so: so that every person will have the opportunity to exercise his own free will, making his choice to believe in God or not.

Please explain how preventing a tornado from ripping through Joplin, Missouri would prevent people from making free will choices?

He has not abandoned Creation, despite its rejection of Him. He works sublimely, directing it to its final conclusion in a way that does not impinge on our own accountability. Thus, evil has room to exist.

God demonstrated His love toward us by sending His only begotten Son to die in our place. That cleared the up the legal problem of our salvation. He then demonstrated His power by raising Christ from death, our High Priest able to actually effect that salvation.

So if God sits there and does nothing while a rapist brutally molests an innocent child, he's off the hook because he sent himself to die in our place? (note that Jesus didn't really die, as he actually rose from the dead; death equates to permanent death). Do you realize how absurd that is?

Evil truly sucks, and this world is sold out to it. But the day is coming when God will wipe every tear from our eyes and make all things new. And indeed, that day is here.

What is different about things now then before that day arrived?

 

[Akureyri]

No, you have refused to hear my point. It is obvious to me that if God can create a universe so vast and precise, then He should be able to prevent tornadoes and murders. But it is a clear fact that sometimes He chooses not to. His reason for choosing not to prevent evil is not necessarily due to a lack of love, that is your projection of your own expectations upon Him. If you want to understand why He tolerates evil, you will need to see His point of view.

Apparently you haven't thought this through.

If God loves everyone, and a tornado wipes through Joplin, Missouri, causing thousands to suffer, then by definition, he was incapable of diverting or stopping the tornado.

If God can do anything and a massive earthquake strikes Haiti, killing some 200,000 people, then by definition, he didn't love those people enough to prevent the earthquake.

What is the purpose of this thread if it is not to express some discontent with God's wisdom?

The purpose of this thread is largely to have a discussion about how Christians reconcile the problem of evil.

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity

 

[paul1149]

I will leave saying that you are failing to appreciate the seriousness and consequences of sin. Take care.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I don't see this thread as ministering to the OP. He has apparently no interest in accepting any answers given to him but just wants to debate which is against the purpose of this subforum. I don't think he desires to understand Christianity at all.

 

[Akureyri]

I will leave saying that you are failing to appreciate the seriousness and consequences of sin. Take care.

It is my understanding that most Christians wish to help others understand their faith/religion. This has nothing to do with me appreciating or not appreciating the consequences of sin. This has to do with how Christians reconcile the inherent logical contradiction of the problem of evil.

 

[Akureyri]

I don't see this thread as ministering to the OP. He has apparently no interest in accepting any answers given to him but just wants to debate which is against the purpose of this subforum. I don't think he desires to understand Christianity at all.

I accept all the answers which come my way. But if you read the original question, you'll see I'm merely asking for an A/B answer. No explanations are necessary. Just a simple A or B.

 

[Akureyri]

Read the bible and tell me does God stop people from harming each other in the Old Testament? NO.

How could you know that the Bible is an accurate account of what a god did or didn't do?

God didn't stop Cain from killing able so trying to assert that God can do this and that when his nature shows he doesn't do this and that is using information that is incorrect about God to create a God that is not and then attacking it... Straw man.

This is not a straw man argument. I'm asking Christians to reconcile how they deal with the logical problems of the problem of evil - based on a god that can do anything and loves everyone.

In the Old Testament God allowed the Jews to suffer on their own without his help many times when they abandoned him. The Jews spent 400 years as slaves in Egypt and God didn't raise a hand to help them during that time. God finally decided that it was time to save them unto himself not that they deserved it but it was his plan to do so.

If you were God, would you have killed a single man (Hitler) so that six million people wouldn't have to suffer? Or would you let the single man live, thus causing six million people to suffer?

I think so, Why would a perfect being desire destruction of himself?

It's not a question of whether God desires destruction of himself. It's whether or not he's capable of destroying himself. If he can do anything - as many Christians claim - then it would follow that he can destroy himself.

God's perfect nature at times has him turning his back on sin (imperfection) and his desire for man to CHOOSE to love him has him allowing great evil of men that choose to hate him and allowing great evil to exist and prosper is something that people that claim God is ONLY love don't seem to have a grasp on. God uses evil for his purpose of good even.

Who are these people who hate God? And why do you suppose they hate God?

You just answered yourself what I don't believe God can do anything because forcing people to love isn't logical.

If God can do anything, then he can modify the neurological activity in a human's brain so that the human loves something or someone.

Love isn't a forced thing it MUST be voluntary or it isn't love that is why God allows men to do evil because likewise in order for them to equally and voluntary choose to love him he has to allow the opposite to happen identically at the same level of passion. In order to allow us to worship him, God has to allow people to do the opposite which is to attack him AND his followers even to the point of tormenting and killing believers.

I don't part ways with them, when I have studied the Bible and seen God's nature within it I cannot agree that God's nature has him going around ruling the Earth stopping all evil. The Bible itself shows he doesn't do any such thing till he sets up his kingdom in the future. When he sets up his kingdom things will be different there won't be any rape or murder I believe but now... God allows it.

It sounds as if you're reconciling the OP question by saying God doesn't love us enough to prevent mass calamities. Am I correct?

yes, Jesus IS God and as God AND human he suffered. I'm not able to tell you how he died and "rejoined" God in it all that is a mind boggling thing I don't totally understand.

If Jesus is God, then God actually sent himself to be crucified, fully knowing that he would rise from the dead. Just how is that a sacrifice?

I would save them if I could, and doing so I would be an agent of God in it since I am a believer. I think God encourages people to become policemen, doctors, rescue workers, etc instead of doing endless miracles and having us sitting around like a bunch of kings with God as our personal slave.

And how do you think people would view you if you didn't save the children from getting hit by the train?

I think God has the power to do most anything, but his nature has him doing far less than people try and argue. This makes for two versions of God, one that is based upon what God HAS shown he will do and for what reasons we can establish he does them and another that people equate is possible. I equate it with a reality type version of God and a dreamworld type. If you were to go to a casino you could equate that you could sit down at every machine and every gambling table and win every single bet and become an overnight millionaire. It is possible for that to happen, but very few in their right minds will tell everyone around them that is what will happen as they know odds are so much against it from experience that equating the possibility of such is inane.

Once again, it appears as if you're reconciling the OP question by asserting that God doesn't love us all.

Don Quiote is a fictional character that at one time went around attacking windmills thinking they were monsters just as you are equating a fictional god and attacking it here.

I'm not the one positing a fictional God. The Christians who claim there is a god that can do anything and loves everyone are the ones positing what seems to be a fictional god.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I accept all the answers which come my way. But if you read the original question, you'll see I'm merely asking for an A/B answer. No explanations are necessary. Just a simple A or B.

No thanks, I'm not playing any more go find some others to taunt with your "questions".

 

[Akureyri]

No thanks, I'm not playing any more go find some others to taunt with your "questions".

What do you think is the worst thing that would happen if you were to honestly answer my questions?

I just come here looking to understand how Christians make sense of these logical inconsistencies. And I can't get answers. :-(

 

[dhh712]

When Christians answer 'yes' to the question of "Does God love everyone", do they think I'm talking about some other kind of love? If so, what would it be?

I interpret it as that He wants us to be with Him for eternity. That is the kind of love He bears for us. This world means nothing, yet it is so difficult to believe that because it is all we can sense.

It seems as if you're saying he doesn't really care if people don't believe he exists. Am I correct?

From a human standpoint, that is what it seems like. Yet He loves us, so I can only imagine He would like for us to believe He exists. It seems you want me to explain God and that I cannot do. He is incomprehensible.

And you just said he doesn't have the level of narcissism that humans have. I sense a little inconsistency here. Perhaps you could reconcile this.

That our purpose on earth here is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever does make God seem narcissistic. I must agree that that is what it seems like from a human perspective. Yet, again, I'm not here to explain God.

According to the Holy Trinity, Jesus is God. So if Jesus suffered, then God suffered. But more importantly, if Jesus was God, then when he was being crucified, he knew that he wasn't going to die and that he would rise from the dead. While he may have experienced pain, he would have known that he would live again. That's not that big a sacrifice.

The Holy Trinity is way too complex to simply equate Jesus to God and that is it. If that was it, then there would be one God and not one Triune God. I wish I could convey to you the agony of having God turn away His presence from someone. My heart turns in agony at the thought of Jesus, God's own son, having endured this suffering for us.

Are you saying that it would be OK if your child got raped by a rapist while a god sits there and does nothing to prevent it from happening?

I said it wouldn't be okay. Of course I would rebel against His plan and demand to know why it had to happen. Yet, "though He slay me, yet I trust in Him."

If God can do anything, then why does he need a tragic hurricane to wipe through the city of New Orleans to get people to come to Christ? Why not try something a little less unloving such as changing the person so the person wants to come to Christ? More interestingly, why do such disasters act indiscriminately with respect to who the surviving victims are? Some already have come to Christ and some won't come to Christ in spite of the disaster. For you to be correct, we'd see disasters strike only those who need a disaster to get them to come to Christ - and that's not what we see.

I can't explain His plan to you. I do not know the details. All I know is that suffering exists in the world and happens to those who believe in God and those who do not.

I'm not positing that god can't do anything. Simple logic tells us that in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, a god who loves us all can't exist.

It certainly can if the measure of God's love is not that He gives us earthly comforts. If I suffer some horrible calamity, I will certainly blame God for it and demand to know why and it will try my faith; yet that will not prove to me that He does not love me.

Really? So what then happens if one who is predestined for everlasting life chooses a path which finds him not believing a god exists?

They will not be able to do that. Or they will be effectually called before they die. I certainly did not believe in God for many years. Though I may not be effectually called--it is something a believer should never be too certain of.

So how did you reconcile it? Did you conclude that God is incapable of doing anything or did you conclude that God doesn't love everyone?

I reconciled it by believing that God is capable of doing whatsoever is His will and that He loves everyone. I am not basing it on any logic, but what His word says. Do you know that child's song, "Jesus loves me, that I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so?" That is very true. Yet, it is only known through His word. Unless we become as little children, we will not be able to be in His presence forever (be in heaven). He is my heavenly Father; I love Him and trust Him, and believe Him more than I believe any imaginations of man.

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something. I only believe things if I have a good reason. But if God can do anything, then I'd guess he can give me good reasons to believe anything.


I am seeking a better understanding how Christians reconcile aspects of their religious views which double as logical impossibilities.

Well, that is the way you are then. Perhaps one day you will experience His calling and it will change the way you think, where you do not need reason to deal with things of the spiritual world. Reason is absolutely vital in dealing with this world, however it seems that by our earthly reasoning, we cannot comprehend Him. And if He does call you, He will absolutely give you reasons to believe in Him--only they will not be objective ones which can be proven by repeatable experiments, they will be subjective reasons.

I once felt very much the way you do, needing a reason to believe in anything. The faith I've been called to seems a bit harsh though. It stresses God as a Sovereign at the expense of, as I see it, his enduring love for us. Yet it was the only thing which made sense to me, to paint God in this harsh light. Not that my reason enabled me to believe--that was the work of the Holy Spirit (I sometimes feel that as punishment for my years of arrogance in my own knowledge, He called me to this harsh faith; but, that is just me always trying to figure God out). Now that I believe, I trust that He loves everyone because His word says that He does.

 

[oi_antz]

Apparently you haven't thought this through.

Who?

If God loves everyone, and a tornado wipes through Joplin, Missouri, causing thousands to suffer, then by definition, he was incapable of diverting or stopping the tornado.

By your definition. Make sure you keep that in mind.

If God can do anything and a massive earthquake strikes Haiti, killing some 200,000 people, then by definition, he didn't love those people enough to prevent the earthquake.

You will need to consider what His reason was for allowing this to happen. One can allow bad things to happen to people they love, having a good reason for allowing it to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that more love would make them not allow that bad thing to happen.

The purpose of this thread is largely to have a discussion about how Christians reconcile the problem of evil.

.. not to force them into your mould?

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity

D) God chooses to exercise wisdom by tolerating evil.

By the way, you didn't answer my question regarding C). How is God's tolerance of evil a "logical invalidity"?

 

[Akureyri]

I interpret it as that He wants us to be with Him for eternity. That is the kind of love He bears for us. This world means nothing, yet it is so difficult to believe that because it is all we can sense.

If true, then why does he allow us to live long enough to potentially become explicit atheists?

From a human standpoint, that is what it seems like. Yet He loves us, so I can only imagine He would like for us to believe He exists. It seems you want me to explain God and that I cannot do. He is incomprehensible.

Actions speak louder than words. To date, no supernatural being has done anything to lead me down the path to believing it exists. If a god can do anything and knows everything, then it would know precisely what it would take to get me to believe it exists. But it does nothing. From this, we can safely conclude that your statement is inaccurate. If your god exists, he doesn't care if we believe he exists.

That our purpose on earth here is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever does make God seem narcissistic. I must agree that that is what it seems like from a human perspective. Yet, again, I'm not here to explain God.

Earlier you were talking about God's own glorification. What we do has nothing to do with how narcissistic some supernatural being is.

The Holy Trinity is way too complex to simply equate Jesus to God and that is it. If that was it, then there would be one God and not one Triune God. I wish I could convey to you the agony of having God turn away His presence from someone. My heart turns in agony at the thought of Jesus, God's own son, having endured this suffering for us.

What evidence do you have that the suffering of the human god was for the benefit of other humans?

I said it wouldn't be okay. Of course I would rebel against His plan and demand to know why it had to happen. Yet, "though He slay me, yet I trust in Him."

I can't explain His plan to you. I do not know the details. All I know is that suffering exists in the world and happens to those who believe in God and those who do not.

From this we can safely conclude that if there is a god, it either doesn't love us enough to prevent the mass suffering or it is incapable of preventing the mass suffering. While I'm happy to discuss these other things, this thread is largely to find out how Christians reconcile this. From one human to another human, I ask, which one of these three you believe to be true.

A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

It certainly can if the measure of God's love is not that He gives us earthly comforts. If I suffer some horrible calamity, I will certainly blame God for it and demand to know why and it will try my faith; yet that will not prove to me that He does not love me.

Then explain why a being that loves you would act in such a way that it doesn't love you.

They will not be able to do that. Or they will be effectually called before they die. I certainly did not believe in God for many years. Though I may not be effectually called--it is something a believer should never be too certain of.

What do you mean by "effectually called"?

I reconciled it by believing that God is capable of doing whatsoever is His will and that He loves everyone.

Then by process of elimination, we can rule out A, as you're saying he loves everyone. And we can rule out C because you appear to be thinking about it. So is it correct that you believe God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis?

A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

I am not basing it on any logic, but what His word says. Do you know that child's song, "Jesus loves me, that I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so?" That is very true. Yet, it is only known through His word. Unless we become as little children, we will not be able to be in His presence forever (be in heaven). He is my heavenly Father; I love Him and trust Him, and believe Him more than I believe any imaginations of man.

Essentially what you're saying is "Jesus loves you" = "The Bible exists". Perhaps this is really just a dialect of English which Christians use. Some will say God = Love. My dialect says to use the term "love" to describe "love". It doesn't say to use the term "God" for anything.

Well, that is the way you are then. Perhaps one day you will experience His calling and it will change the way you think, where you do not need reason to deal with things of the spiritual world. Reason is absolutely vital in dealing with this world, however it seems that by our earthly reasoning, we cannot comprehend Him.

Give me a good reason to believe your god exists and I'll believe it exists. I refuse to lie to myself.

And if He does call you, He will absolutely give you reasons to believe in Him--only they will not be objective ones which can be proven by repeatable experiments, they will be subjective reasons.

If they are subjective in nature, then how can I take these experiences to experts so they can tell me for sure it was a supernatural being? It seems as if your god wants very badly to appear no different than a non-existent god. Just how does this serve the overall agenda or purpose of your god?

I once felt very much the way you do, needing a reason to believe in anything. The faith I've been called to seems a bit harsh though. It stresses God as a Sovereign at the expense of, as I see it, his enduring love for us. Yet it was the only thing which made sense to me, to paint God in this harsh light. Not that my reason enabled me to believe--that was the work of the Holy Spirit (I sometimes feel that as punishment for my years of arrogance in my own knowledge, He called me to this harsh faith; but, that is just me always trying to figure God out). Now that I believe, I trust that He loves everyone because His word says that He does.

Well, if he exists and can do anything, then he clearly doesn't love everyone. Every year, some nine million children under the age of five die due to diseases which eat them away from the inside. If you call sitting there and doing nothing when given the power to prevent such suffering "love", then you've got a really strange idea of what love really is.

 

[Akureyri]

Apparently you haven't thought this through.

Who?

I'm guessing that this comment pertained to the following:

I ask, which one of these three you believe to be true.

A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

If God loves everyone, and a tornado wipes through Joplin, Missouri, causing thousands to suffer, then by definition, he was incapable of diverting or stopping the tornado.

By your definition. Make sure you keep that in mind.

Well, we may have different ideas of what "love" means. If that's true, then it would appear you would take option A (God doesn't love us enough) to reconcile the problem of evil. Am I correct?

If God can do anything and a massive earthquake strikes Haiti, killing some 200,000 people, then by definition, he didn't love those people enough to prevent the earthquake.

You will need to consider what His reason was for allowing this to happen. One can allow bad things to happen to people they love, having a good reason for allowing it to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that more love would make them not allow that bad thing to happen.

This is an issue of definitions. If a god exists and it can do anything, then if it does nothing to save innocent people from calamities, then it doesn't love them. Likewise, if such god loves the people and the calamity occurs, then by definition, it is incapable of doing anything.

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity

D) God chooses to exercise wisdom by tolerating evil.

Is there a particular reason you're not being straightforward with me? The answer you're giving - while appreciated - does not provide me enough information to discern if you reconcile this by A, B or C. Would you think it would be safe to assume the willful lack of an A or B answer would likely mean a C answer in this case? Remember, there are no other available options.

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity

By the way, you didn't answer my question regarding C). How is God's tolerance of evil a "logical invalidity"?

Please understand, I'm referring to a god which Christians have posited as being able to do anything and to love everyone.
-If God can do anything, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition he doesn't love everyone
-If God loves everyone, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition, he is incapable of doing anything

 

[dhh712]

Well, if he exists and can do anything, then he clearly doesn't love everyone. Every year, some nine million children under the age of five die due to diseases which eat them away from the inside. If you call sitting there and doing nothing when given the power to prevent such suffering "love", then you've got a really strange idea of what love really is.

I must confess to you, I want so much not to believe the harsh teachings of Scripture--however, it is truly evident from His word that He does not love everyone. After all, He hated Esau. Right there, we have an example from His very word that He did not love everyone.

Most people would think that idea of love as strange: after all, if someone said that suffering was an example of God's loving hand in their life, that person would probably be thought of as psychotic.

It is just so harsh to me that I hang onto what it is written in His word: to trust Him, to hope in Him. All I can say to you is that I love Him. I believe He is just, good, and holy. I trust in Him--in Him alone and not even in the doctrines of my faith. It is true that I can't deny the understanding of the Scripture which the Holy Spirit has given to me, but I can hope in Him. I do believe that He is compassionate, just, and merciful. I want Him to love everyone, yet above all I believe He is just, good, and merciful and it will be made right by Him though not on our terms but on His.

No one can ever convince anyone by way of reason that they should love such a God. The Being who has determined all of time and is the reason for everyone's situation in which they find themselves in is not one to whom someone would logically rush to in order to find comfort. They would look at their suffering and say: "You are the cause of this? This is what you had planned for me? This? This horrible suffering? Well then I do not want anything to do with you. I hate you."

That it requires the Holy Spirit to enable one to love God is so evident in that it is impossible to love such a God on one's own trying to do so. The problem I feel is that for someone to not believe in God, usually they believe that this is all there is to life. They do not believe in anything afterwards. I think you even said yourself that the promise of an afterlife would not be enough to make up for the grief of having experienced the horror of someone having raped your child.

I wish I could give a better reason for why He has ordained some onto everlasting death. All I can say is that it is in order to glorify Him, which I believe you said something like to your mind it makes Him seem narcissistic and I can understand that perspective.

What evidence do you have that the suffering of the human god was for the benefit of other humans?

It wasn't. It was for His own glorification.

Give me a good reason to believe your god exists and I'll believe it exists. I refuse to lie to myself.

I, on my own, will never have a good enough reason for you to believe He exists. It must mean He hasn't called you yet.

Actions speak louder than words. To date, no supernatural being has done anything to lead me down the path to believing it exists. If a god can do anything and knows everything, then it would know precisely what it would take to get me to believe it exists. But it does nothing. From this, we can safely conclude that your statement is inaccurate. If your god exists, he doesn't care if we believe he exists.

It must not be in His plan for you to believe yet. I hate saying that He doesn't "care" that we believe He exists because it makes Him seem uncompassionate. There is nothing I can say which will make you believe that He is compassionate though. It is true that He doesn't need us. He doesn't need us for His glorification, His glorification is merely made manifest in us.

Earlier you were talking about God's own glorification. What we do has nothing to do with how narcissistic some supernatural being is.

I agree. What we do has nothing to do with how God is.

From this we can safely conclude that if there is a god, it either doesn't love us enough to prevent the mass suffering or it is incapable of preventing the mass suffering. While I'm happy to discuss these other things, this thread is largely to find out how Christians reconcile this. From one human to another human, I ask, which one of these three you believe to be true.


A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

It is clearly the first as I confessed in the first paragraph. The reason I didn't want to say it is that it is so harsh for people to accept. I want to believe He loves everyone so much because He loves me and it just kills me to know that it can't be true for everyone. I live in open rebellion against His word because it is just so harsh. The message in Scripture though is clear: it is not about us, it is about Him. And to realize that is an incredibly humbling thing.

For whatever reason, He has ordained some onto everlasting death. Does that make God unjust? If it is all about us, then it would. I hope I am wrong, that God is not harsh. Yet a message which says that God is all love and nothing else is just not biblically accurate; it is so obvious that the biblical God is one of judgment as well as love. Nevertheless, I trust in Him, I hope in Him. And I cannot refuse to recognize the message which the Holy Spirit wants me to understand. I can't dishonor Him by saying, "I don't like it, therefore I won't believe in it." I can't lie to Him though and say, "I like it," because I don't. He knows what is in my heart. It is useless to lie.

Perhaps I was deceiving you and I apologize for this. However, I want to make it clear that I am no biblical scholar and I definitely can be wrong about it. Yet that is the understanding which the Holy Spirit wants me to have. I just didn't want to portray God in such a harsh light so I tried to soften Him. That was incredibly wrong, but being a new Christian and having an understanding which seems so contrary to what it seems like most Christians believe makes it so difficult to say what you really believe (It seems like I also immediately get this condemnation from others such as, "Why are you trying to make God into a monster?" Again, they are only looking at it from a humanity-centered perspective).

Also, I must admit I'm getting back into the research of my favorite person who ever lived and in his writings, he grieved about the harshness of what the Scriptures teach of God. He said he regretted his gloomy Presbyterian training which seemed to instill more a fear of God than a love of Him. He encouraged his wife to teach their children to love, love, love God.

Then explain why a being that loves you would act in such a way that it doesn't love you.

To dis-attach someone from the comforts of this world is the ultimate show of love. This world is under the limited power of the spirit of the world. God allows Satan to have control of it for the time being, all to God's own glorification. To have someone become so wrapped up in this world so that their thoughts are only on it and not endeavoring to be properly obedient to God because they love Him because He has given them faith which will make their works acceptable in God's sight would be the ultimate act of not loving someone.

To someone who does not love God and who cares primarily for the things of this world, how can something like that be thought of as love? They would only see it as punishment or some other negative thing.

What do you mean by "effectually called"?

Those who were chosen by God to everlasting life and not because of anything that He foresaw in the future that they would do.

If they are subjective in nature, then how can I take these experiences to experts so they can tell me for sure it was a supernatural being? It seems as if your god wants very badly to appear no different than a non-existent god. Just how does this serve the overall agenda or purpose of your god?

You probably will not be able to know of God by any objective evidence, that is just not the way He works. He enables belief in Him only by the work of the Holy Spirit. This serves to glorify Him.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm guessing that this comment pertained to the following:

I ask, which one of these three you believe to be true.

A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

No, it was pertaining to your failure to think it through properly. I've stated to you three times now that you are wrong to consider only two options. You are refusing to think about that.

Well, we may have different ideas of what "love" means. If that's true, then it would appear you would take option A (God doesn't love us enough) to reconcile the problem of evil. Am I correct?

Nope. His method of identifying and convicting evil may seem peculiar, but it is perfectly effective.

This is an issue of definitions. If a god exists and it can do anything, then if it does nothing to save innocent people from calamities, then it doesn't love them. Likewise, if such god loves the people and the calamity occurs, then by definition, it is incapable of doing anything.

Is there a particular reason you're not being straightforward with me? The answer you're giving - while appreciated - does not provide me enough information to discern if you reconcile this by A, B or C. Would you think it would be safe to assume the willful lack of an A or B answer would likely mean a C answer in this case? Remember, there are no other available options.

You are wrong, there is another option which I have shown you three times and you refuse to hear it.

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity


Please understand, I'm referring to a god which Christians have posited as being able to do anything and to love everyone.
-If God can do anything, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition he doesn't love everyone
-If God loves everyone, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition, he is incapable of doing anything

You just don't seem to want to see the big picture.